Talk:Half-elf/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay I'll take a look, make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot notes below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Odd split - Myth vs Tolkien vs Dunsany/RPGs - I understand the rationale given the theme. I think there must be more material out there and this can be rejigged.
 * If the D&D material can be extended then of course it may deserve a section. The brief Dunsany mention could then go into 'Origins'.


 * Okay, I think we have a weighting issue but not sure what reliable sources tehre are to back up the RPG stuff. Yes the Half-elf (Dungeons & Dragons) is in a sorry state, but half elves have been a popular theme for 5 editions and over 40 years in teh game. I think they warrant more than one line. In fact I think the articles should be merged but others would disagree and it is beyond the scope of this GAN.
 * Games are always difficult to source reliably; given Wikipedia's rules, all the places gamers write are pretty much unusable, and that's if any of them feel like editing Wikipedia anyway. The sources in the D&D article would be ok with page numbers..... If you come across anything usable, feel free just to add it to the article, or else put it here. I have no objection to doing a merge if there are page-numbered books or decent online sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I recall now that I searched both on Scholar and plain Google and drew a blank when editing the article. My Google search went something like this: Google for half-decent half-elf sources and it comes about as close to a Googlewhack (0 hits) as makes no difference... I've just had another look and it's not a lot better. "half-elven" does a little better but I've still not located anything much to add ("there are elf variants in D&D 3.5", hmm, no). Chiswick Chap (talk)
 * I suspected you'd looked and feared an answer like this. Need to think about how to look....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've slept on it. I think that the article is correctly written but that its title may perhaps need "(Tolkien)" added to it — or perhaps not. Here's why. The D&D article's all-primary sourcing and the lack of any sign of reliable secondary sources through search does rather suggest that the D&D half-elf isn't actually notable. That article could therefore be deleted or merged, either to D&D or to here. However it consists of exactly two things: statements that "The half-elf appeared as a character race in the Nth edition Player's Handbook [and in supplemental sourcebook XYZ]"; and a completely unsourced 'Description': not much of use there.
 * There is one other thing: Tanis Half-Elven. That article, despite its 24 unsourced paragraphs in 6 wholly-unsourced sections, does contain a 'Reception' section with 4 sources that are at least somewhat secondary (3 of them are in the io9 franchise, so not Gygax/D&D directly). We could use those to say a little about Tanis Half-Elven to balance out this article.
 * Then the question remains: is this article the parent of Half-elf (Dungeons & Dragons) (if that article survives), in which case it is already correctly-named? If it isn't, even after the addition of the Tanis Half-Elven material, then it's effectively Half-elf (Tolkien), and the question is, is it clearly the default for the 'half-elf' topic — in which case it is already correctly-named. Otherwise, we can rename the article when this GAN has finished. Obviously, if we can make it sufficiently detailed to be the parent then there's no issue. I'll have a go at adding something now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a D&D section, mainly about Tanis Half-Elven; have moved Dunsany up to 'Origins'; and have extended the lead slightly to reflect this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is of more value to have this as a global rather than tolkien article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * : Well we're certainly close to that now. I've added a summary of Lord Dunsany and given him his own section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Status query
Casliber, Chiswick Chap, where does this nomination stand? It's been a month since the article was last edited, and the belated attempt at a ping just above this section wouldn't have worked (pings have to made in the same edit as a new sig, which didn't happen above). Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm awaiting input. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh crap sorry. I feel there must be other mateial that eludes common search terms...but it's so far (not surprisingly) eluded me. I'll get to this in the next few days. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay - are Skuld and Högni's attributes discussed anywhere? My vague recollection is that they essentially pass for human, but does any source discuss this...?


 * Direct search yields nothing usable. However, it seems you are right, as both the sagas and modern scholars take that for granted, so it's hard to say anything on that directly. Both Skuld and Högni are however described as evil or demonic; scholars see that as fitting in easily enough with being elvish, but I've seen no specific discussion of their half-elven nature. I've added a couple of sources which help to situate this, at least. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: fine for GA-hood now. Best that can be done with (reliable) sources avaiable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)